Welcome to The Rant! Your very own electronic cesspool of naughty, left wing propaganda. MADE IN AMERICA!!!

Friday, June 10, 2016

Like It or Not: It's Hillary

The cross that progressives have to bear in 2016

"I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Will Rogers

Like it or not (and I have to confess that I don't like it one bit) Hillary Clinton is, at this hour, the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, and, barring a miracle, it is she who will be the "progressive" standard bearer in the campaign of 2016. Too many parlor liberals were unable to see the forest through the trees; they were so intent on seeing the first woman take the oath of office as chief-executive on January 20, 2017, that they let their hearts overtake their heads. As for myself, I was hoping (praying) that Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts would throw her hat into the ring. I'm sure she had her reasons for not doing so, and I don't doubt for a minute that they were damned good reasons. She's doing remarkable work as a senator, holding up a mirror and forcing America to come face-to-face with the hideous image of what it has become. She and Bernie Sanders are the two best things to happen to progressive politics in this country in a very long time.

Here, yet again, is one of those bad news/good news scenarios that seem to be everywhere you look on the political landscape these days.

The Bad News: Hillary Clinton is the worst possible candidate the Democrats could have put forward this year - or any year for that matter.

The Good News: She'll be running against Donald Trump.

It's a sad thing indeed when the most positive thing one can say about her is that she's not Donald Trump. I don't think she will be a good president. I might be wrong about this. I sincerely hope I am. Perhaps her plan all along has been to walk the walk in order not to aggravate the plutocracy. Perhaps she sincerely intends on honest,progressive representation. We shall see. You'll forgive me my cynicism. Any prospective presidential candidate who is paid three-quarters-of-a-million BIG ONES to give speeches to a bunch of corrupt bankers at which the public is excluded - and then has the nerve to refuse to release the transcripts of those speeches - has handily earned the skepticism of any thinking person.Think about this: When asked who he would prefer as president, billionaire neo-con Charles Koch said, in front of a television camera, that he would prefer Clinton over Trump. That's not a particularly hopeful sign, folks. Perhaps he has read the transcripts of her secret speeches to the Goldman Sachs crowd. We who lean left have every right and reason to be suspicious of this candidate.

Having Hillary Rodham Clinton as the nominee is like, as the great political humorist, Mort Sahl, once put it in another, slightly different context: "finding out you're pregnant and trying to fall in love as rapidly as possible." We'll just have to roll with the punches. The best thing that can be said, at least from the perspective of June 10, 2016, is that this country will survive Hillary Clinton. That's not the case as far as The Donald is concerned. I'll say it again: If the American people are stupid enough to send this guy to the White House next January 20, they'll deserve everything that happens to them. There is no excuse for mass stupidity.The most ironic thing about this whole mess is the sad fact that the Dems were handed this year - on a silver platter, mind you - the most visionary candidate in their nearly two-hundred year history, and they blew it. Leave it to those silly Democrats: Give them two clear choices and they'll make the wrong one every time - and that would include every nominee since 1980. Damned-near all of the polls had Bernie defeating Trump very easily in November. That's not the case with Ms. Clinton. A few polls are showing her barely neck-and-neck with him.Neck-and-neck with Donald Trump. Can you imagine?`Because of Bernie Sanders, the eyes of America have been opened wide. It's never going to be the same. There is a good reason why Bernie is going to take his fight to the convention in Philadelphia this summer. He's not trying to "divide" the Democratic Party (as he has been accused of doing). He is merely attempting to make damned sure that he has a hand in composing the party's platform as they make their way to do battle in the autumn campaign. He has every right to take part in this - and he should. When this is all over, it will be difficult for Hillary to ease herself back to the center-right, to the role of the squishy moderate that she has always seemed most comfortable playing. We're in a new era now, and it would do her well to understand this.`

The whole world was watching

A final word of caution: There has been a lot of talk out there in the Facebooksphere regarding angry supporters of Bernie showing up in Philly and disrupting the festivities this summer. While I empathize with their anger (I'm pretty angry, too!) I just want to remind them about the summer of 1968. A lot of people, justifiably, went into a blind rage when LBJ's vice-president, Hubert Humphrey, received the nomination that year. The end-result of the chaos of the 1968 Democratic convention was five-and-a-half years of Dick Nixon.Remember your American history - and learn from it.Tom DeganGoshen, NYSUGGESTED VIEWING:Where To Invade NextA film by Michael MooreFor a change, Mike's latest film is not about the United States. It's primarily about Europe, and the life the people lead over there, free from the societal, educational and economic dysfunction that we in America take for granted. Seventy years ago, Germany lay in ruins. You wouldn't know it. Comparing the two countries in 2016, one could be forgiven for thinking that they won the war. Here is a link to order it off of Amazon.com:

HH was not the center of the anger at the 1968 Democratic convention. He ended up the nominee of the Democrats for president. Many Democrats disagreed with that choice, but they rallied to hopefully keep Nixon out of the White House. He was our nominee like it, or not. HH was a supporter of the Vietnam war until he saw a chance to be president and changed his mind about the war according to which way the wind was blowing in the public at that time. A typical politician. I should say that I knew HH, he was a family friend. His personal lawyer and childhood friend was my Uncle. My opinion of both of them was not very good. I was an RFK fan, but he didn't enter the Democratic primaries. I met Sen. McCarthy many times at my school, which was his old school, St. John's in Collegeville, MN. I started knocking doors for McCarthy. RFK finally entered the race, then fate took over. The 1968 election was a close one, but HH lost. Nixon won in a landslide in 1972, even though papers (not just Woodward and Bernstein) at the time had tied Watergate to the White House. The rest is a depressing history of a sick man. My opinion of Hillary matches yours. Bill was way to conservative for me, but he explains that with Newt and the Republicans with majority, he was pulled to the right, just to get things done. Given the legislation that was passed then, I would prefer he just put up a good fight. I'm sure there were many who voted for Obama just because he was black. I'm sure there are many who will vote for Clinton, just because she is a woman. I'm sure there are many who will vote for Trump, just because he is the Republican candidate. I have watched (and participated) in these elections for 50 years. My opinion matches Bill Maher - Americans are stupid.We now have our choice. A stark choice to be sure. My advice to you Tom, swallow your convictions and vote to make sure Trump does not become president. That's what I'm going to do and then take a shower to wash the slime off myself. I believe Warren (not Warred) would do the most good in Congress where we need her vote desperately. Hillary can find any suit to be her VP. My prediction - Trump will lose in a landslide.My regret is that I will die before we ever have a true progressive government that can progress America.

TOM: "My regret is that I will die before we ever have a true progressive government that can progress America."

We all will be, Tom. Every one of us. The corporate state is firmly entrenched and I'm convinced we're in for the fight of our lives. Whatever it is we have in store for us, it "ain't" gonna be pretty. That's for sure.

By the way, Chuck, Venezuela could not sanely be described as "liberal". Its government is also one of the most corrupt in the western hemisphere. Check out Norway sometime. It is a liberal/socialist Heaven.

Yes, you'll still be allowed to post your ideas here - misguided as they may be.

Tom Degan: "Yes, [Chuck,] you'll still be allowed to post your ideas here - misguided as they may be."

Tom, please allow me to make a slight, but ever so huge in meaning, modification to your statement (in bold print): "Yes, Chuck, you'll still be allowed to post your ideas here - misguided as they are."

(I'm guessing he emailed you, and cried and moaned about how unfair and undemocratic you are. Amirite? ;-) May the ghosts of the ancient Demos haunt you forever!)

"Wow. I just read your posts. Clinton was my Senator and she helped me when I was having trouble getting an amplified telephone for my job. She met personally with me and then followed up after I got the phone. She was very warm and personable. I like Bernie and his ideas. I'm torn between two lovers."

Has the leader of Norway endorsed Bernie like the President of Venezuela? Honestly Tom, you are the first liberal that I am aware of who has criticized the Socialist failure of Venezuela. Tip of the hat to you.

"In the new book Scandinavian Unexceptionalism: Culture, Markets and the Failure of Third-Way Socialism, however, academic Nima Sanandaji, Ph.D., makes an iron-clad case showing that the Nordic nations' relative success predates the welfare state. Indeed, the region actually provides bountiful evidence of the benefits of free markets and economic freedom, and of the harm wrought by Big Government."

Chuck, Venezuelan is a failure because the government there is riddled with corruption. They are Socialists in name only. Look at countries like Denmark and Norway - overwhelming and impressive success stories.

Chuck falsely believes Bernie wants to emulate Venezuelan banana republic tradition. Their economy is entirely oil based. The fall of oil prices is the fluctuation of a “free market”, more than failed socialism, is it not?

So health care, roads, bridges, infrastructure, fire and police services, and education are the “harm wrought by Big Government”? Funny how militarism, permanent war and a police state that allows torture is not “big government”. No "harm" there, amirite?

Also, no harm from de-regulated capitalism that caused the destruction of pensions and home values? Perish the thought. Failed capitalism will be ignored and Venezuela will be the distraction.

Now about the lost jobs from "Free trade" agreements written by corporate lackeys? No harm there?

Chuck’s author Nima Sanandaji, Ph.D. has a PhD from the Royal Institute of Technology in polymer engineering. A “Plastic man” is Chuck’s expert?

I read where someone said they had only voted for one candidate once in all their years of voting and that was Jimmy Carter. For the rest, it was always against someone. I've voted for candidates I believed would do good (not always was I proven right), but this time it'll be against someone. It's been a disillusioning primary season and I don't expect to enjoy the rest of it.

Tom I have looked and have provided you source material for you review. Have you looked at it?Are you going to correct JG or allow him to remain misguided in his incorrect belief that I emailed you?

Socialist in name only? I don't believe you have read anything their government has said an done about how to handle an economy. What evidence do you have that they are corrupt? Don't they provide many if not all of what Bernie said he would provide if he became our President? Free collegeNational health care High taxes on the wealthy Redistribution of wealth

Please knock off the bit about Venezuela. As Tom pointed out, the government is as corrupt as the day is long, and the whole economy's foundation and frame is oil (as offered by Dave). Nothing else. When Venezuela's OPEC partner, Saudi Arabia, decided to drive out the small producers with a scorched earth policy, the economy tanked. It poured and they didn't have a roof, so now they're soaked. The same would have happened if their economic base were capitalistic. Our day will come, and it's not too far off. All that funny money the Fed is giving its banking buddies "for free" is going to have devastating consequences.

By the way, I believe you begged Tom to allow you to post. ;-) Unless he says otherwise, and he hasn't yet, I'll hold tight to that belief.

It would seem Tom, that you are quite comfortable in allowing a false hood continue that only you can correct on your blog That lie is that I emailed you. Only you and I know that I didn't but it fits your liberal agenda to allow a lie to stand as truth. I really thought you were better than that Tom. I really believed you were a honest liberal. This proves that you will do say and allow any lie to stand if it furthers the liberal cause. Are all liberals like you?

Tell me Tom, how is Bernie's version of socialism different than that being enacted in Greece and Venezula? You still claim the problem is corruption not socialism. It reminds me of what my socialist friends said when the Union of Socialist States crumbled. They said the wrong people were running things.

I stand by my orginal on topic post that in Nov we will not elect a president whose economic policies will turn us into Venezuela. Is this truth as tough for you to absorb as is the truth that I did not email you?

I am an undecided voter- NOT Dems and Repubs, but between Hillary (assuming she is the nominee) and Green party candidate Dr. Jill Stein. Hands down, I'd much rather see the mallable, changable Clinton as president than Trump, but if she is surely going to win NY (my blue state), than perhaps my vote is worth more in trying to expand this 2 party system to give voters more of a choice!

It would seem Tom, that you are quite comfortable in allowing a false hood continue that only you can correct on your blog That lie is that I emailed you.

Yeah, Tom, as if Chuck NEVER allows a falsehood to continue? Like taxing the rich, and having public health care and education like the rest of the civilized world will make us like just Venezuela or the USSR or North Korea. (The latter has praised his Orange Leader.)

Chuck’s highly sensitive reaction to a “lie”, that began by “I’m guessing”, indicates a thin-skinned reaction in the style of his whiny little bitch Orange Leader.

Chuck is also quite comfortable to allow his demonizing "American ISIS propaganda video" falsehood to continue. He parroted the lie from his whiny little bitch Orange Leader. But that lie was about a liberal so IOKIYAR, amirite?

Have another sip, Chuck. If you believe it hard enough, or if a Republican says it, it must be true. This is how the hate and ignorance and lies are fueled by a cult of true believers.